CAAFLog advises that Pendergrass v. Indiana, No. 09-866, is scheduled for the 10 June case conference at the Supremes. Here courtesy of Prof. Freidman counsel for Pendergrass and also of Melendez-Diaz and Briscoe “fame,” is the Pendergrass cert petition. Here also is the state of Indiana’s brief in opposition to…
Thanks to Professor Colin Miller for this piece. In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court recently found that certificates of state laboratory analysts are "testimonial" and thus covered by the Confrontation Clause. Thus, if the forensic analysts (or similar experts) who prepared such certificates (or similar documents) do not testify…
Here are the military justice related articles in the new Army Lawyer. Searching for Reasonableness—The Supreme Court Revisits the Fourth Amendment “I’ve Got to Admit It’s Getting Better”*: New Developments in Post-Trial The Impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts on Admissibility of Forensic Test Results at Courts-Martial Armed for the Attack:…
United States v. Blazier. Here are the relevant portions of the opinion written by Judge Ryan for the moment. This case presents the question whether the admission of drug testing reports” over defense objection violated Appellant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The antecedent question, whether certain admitted evidence…
Here is a link to the full cert petition in Pendergrass v. Indiana. The question presented is: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the…
Well, that may be anti-climatic? I think the Supremes punted. Here’s a link to the Briscoe memorandum opinion, more later. PER CURIAM. We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Vir-ginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massa-chusetts, 557 U.…
Here is a case from federalevidence.com: Supervisor expert testified about his role in the peer review process; passing reference to the testing chemist’s conclusion did not violate the Confrontation Clause; circuit also distinguishes Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), in United States v. Turner," _ F.3d…
Here is a link to today’s oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, the post Crawford and Melendez-Diaz case. While I’m not convinced the decision will have much meaning in military cases, there are others who believe it will. So it does behoove us to monitor the case.
Briscoe v. Virginia, a post Crawford and Melendez-Diaz case is scheduled to be argued at the U. S. Supreme Court on 11 January 2010. Professor Friedman will argue for petitioner Briscoe. Professor Friedman notes that, “I have just served and filed the reply in Briscoe. You can read it by…